SANCTITY OF LIFE

SANCTITY OF LIFE

*POSTER'S NOTE: Could have posted this elsewhere, different Cults involved in this issue, definitely glaring hypocrisy, but here it is...

Human Rights Versus Animal Rights

October 29, 2011

byR.L. David Jolly

A friend of mine writes for another website and periodically allows me to see his articles in advance. When I saw this one, I asked for permission to use it for today’s post and if I could change the title, to which permission was granted. Therefore, with thanks to Giacomo, I trust this article impacts you as much as it did me:

Many abortion advocates have no clue what goes on at the clinics they endorse, nor do they really want to know. They believe that women have this God-given right to say what happens to their body even if it means murdering an unborn child.

But what about the babies? Do they have any rights?

Sadly, and profoundly perverse is knowing that many people who favor abortion and the right to kill an unborn child are also animal rights activists. Many members of PETA are pro-abortion. They protest and picket cosmetic manufacturers and research labs concerning the treatment of the animals while at the same time they are all in favor in the slaughter of innocent lives that never get the chance to see the light of day.

Vegans won’t eat anything related to animal products, including eggs, milk, meat, fish, poultry or even a clear chicken broth. They believe to do so is cruel to the animals. I’ve listened to interviews with vegans who were protesting for the right of a woman to have her unborn baby sucked or dragged out of her body a piece at a time and then stand there and declare it’s cruel kill a chick and eat it. But no, not unborn babies!

I’ve seen cars with a bumper sticker on one side saying ‘Pro Choice’ and a bumper sticker on the other side saying ‘The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?’ with a picture of a cow. This same person is worried about a cow suffering and not a human baby that was ripped apart in the womb, or worse yet, born alive and then stabbed with a pair of scissors to make sure it doesn’t survive.

If you think I’m kidding or making this up, you’re dead wrong.

The West Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society is an abortion clinic in the center of attention at the moment as two of the workers have pled guilty to killing one mother with an overdose of drugs and killing babies born alive by stabbing them in the spinal cord with a pair a scissors. The doctor who runs the clinic, along with several other employees, have all been charged with performing illegal late-term abortions and with the deaths of babies and at least one mother. Their cases are still pending.

In one of the incidents, the clinic worker found a late-term baby still alive after the mother had given birth to it in the toilet. The worker, Andrea Morton, 34, admitted to stabbing the baby to death. According to the reports, workers at the clinic had been shown by the doctor, Kermit Gosnell, how to take a pair of scissors and severe the spinal cords of any late-term babies that were born alive. Once the spinal cord is severed, the infant quickly dies.

The other staff member pleading guilty is 52 year old Sherry West who admitted to giving a Bhutanese immigrant too much Demerol leading to the death of the 41 year old mother who was 16 weeks pregnant. West and another staff member, Lynda Williams who also has been charged, were attending to Karnamaya Mongar while Dr. Gosnell was not even in the clinic. After Mongar slipped into a drug induced coma, she was taken to the hospital. West accompanied her to the hospital and took along the medical records, but by the time the hospital staff was able to review those records, they had been altered in an attempt to cover up the gross negligence.

Dr. Gosnell, of course, denies all of the charges that have been filed against him, including using any procedure such as stabbing or severing the spinal cord to kill any living babies. He is being held on $2 million bail.

I don’t know how Gosnell can deny all of the charges when Morton produced a cell phone photo of one infant in particular. A 30 week old unborn infant was delivered alive but immediately killed by the attending staff. Three of the clinic staff, including Morton, were surprised at how large the baby was, so she took a photo of it with her cell phone. She subsequently turned her cell phone and photo over to the FBI who has been conducting the investigation.

When authorities raided the clinic, they found a refrigerator full of plastic bags containing numerous dismembered body parts. They also learned that neither Morton nor West have been licensed or trained to carry out the procedures they do on a regular basis. It was also learned that West has hepatitis C and often uses no surgical gloves or any other means of protection to safeguard a patient from contracting the illness.

With her guilty plea, West has offered to help prosecutors in hopes of getting a lesser sentence. At the moment, she could be facing up to 140 years in prison for her part in the deaths.

It appalls me to see just how little value some people place on human life. It’s bad enough to destroy the child in the womb, but willfully kill it after it has been born has to be one of most heinous crimes there is. In the Old Testament, this would have been punishable by death, and who am I to argue with the wisdom of our Creator, who made us in His image.

What has happened at the West Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society is an example of the depravity of man and how heartless abortionists can be. This needs to be broadcast across the nation and used by Pro-Life advocates to demonstrate the horrors and inhumanity of abortion and put an end to the senseless and cold blooded murder of millions of unborn children.

Cheers and fears as world population hits 7 billion

The Philippines welcomes one of the world's symbolic "seven billionth" babies.

Graphic showing the years world population increased by a billion.

A new born baby sleeps in the arms of her mother at a Community Health Center.

Asia welcomed the world's first symbolic "seven billionth" baby on Monday, but celebrations were tempered by worries over the strain that humanity's population explosion is putting on a fragile planet.

The United Nations says that by its best estimates the seven billionth baby will be born somewhere on October 31, and countries around the world have planned events surrounding the demographic milestone.

Zambia is throwing a seven billion song contest; Vietnam is staging a "7B: Counting On Each Other" concert; Russian authorities are showering gifts on selected newborns and the Ivory Coast is putting on a comedy show.

The Philippines was the first country to declare a seven billionth baby, in the form of a little girl called Danica May Camacho.

"She looks so lovely," the mother, Camille Dalura, whispered as she cradled her baby girl.

"I can't believe she is the world's seven billionth."

Danica is the second child for Dalura and her partner, Florante Camacho, who stood quietly in a corner wearing a white hospital gown as television crews and photographers crowded to get a shot of his daughter.

UN officials presented the child with a cake. Other gifts came from local benefactors including a scholarship grant, and a financial package to help the parents open a general store.

Also on hand to witness the birth was 12-year-old Lorrize Mae Guevarra, who the Philippines declared as its own six billionth baby when the world reached that demographic landmark in 1999.

"I am very happy to see this cute baby. I hope like me she will grow up to become healthy and well loved by everyone," Guevarra said.

The UN named a Bosnian child, Adnan Mevic, as the Earth's six billionth inhabitant on October 12, 1999. The secretary general at the time, Kofi Annan, was pictured in a Sarajevo hospital with Mevic in his arms.

The Mevic family is now living in poverty, which is partly why no single baby will be put in the global spotlight this time. Instead Danica May Camacho is one of a number of children whose birth will be marked throughout the day.

The world has added a billion babies -- or almost another China -- since Adnan Mevic was born. Having taken millennia to pass the one-billion mark, the world's population has now doubled in 50 years.

Mounting concern over humanity's environmental impact and fears we may not be able to feed ourselves in 100 years' time have cast a cautionary tone over the buildup to the seven billion milestone.

Current UN chief Ban Ki-moon will not be seen cuddling a newborn. He has said the seven billionth baby will be entering a "world of contradiction", especially if the child is born on the wrong side of the poverty line.

"Plenty of food, but still a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Many people enjoy luxurious lifestyles, but still many people are impoverished," he said in an interview with Time magazine.

Addressing students at a New York school last week, he said: "This is not a story about numbers. This is a story about people."

"Seven billion people who need enough food. Enough energy. Good opportunities in life for jobs and education. Rights and freedoms. The freedom to speak. The freedom to raise their own children in peace and security.

"Everything you want for yourself -- seven billion times over," he said.

The UN chief will be taking his message to the Group of 20 summit this week, where leaders of rich and developing nations will discuss the threat of global recession and efforts to tighten rules on bankers' bonuses and tax havens.

With about two babies being born every second, the seven billion figure will keep racing ahead in decades to come -- to more than 10 billion by 2100, according to UN estimates.

The UN predicts that India will overtake China as the world's most populous nation by 2025, when it will have almost 1.5 billion people.

A new UN Population Fund (UNFPA) report highlights how the world will face growing problems finding jobs for the new army of young people, especially in poor countries.

It also sounds alarms over how climate change and population growth are adding to drought and famine crises; the management of megacities like Tokyo; and ageing populations such as Europe's.

"This is not a matter of space -- it's a matter of equity, opportunity and social justice," UNFPA executive director Babatunde Osotimehin said.

How the world, how we as individual humans, value the sanctity of life, not just our own, our families', communities'... but how we value each and every other human being on this planet is the most single important issue in all of the current topics of life. What could be more important than that?

Matthew 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

We cannot obey the first commandment without obeying the second.

If YOU place a low value on human life, all God's creation, then YOU are a part of the problem. If YOU place a high value on all human life, all God's creation, then YOU are part of the solution.

The core beliefs of Cults and the propaganda and wars that eschew from them centers on their low value of human life. Naturally HIGH value on theirs (especially the Cult leaders') but low value on all others, lives outside their Cult, strangers.

So if we examine the way that Cults falsely elevate (them) and diminish (us) human worth then we can perceive what the core of the world's problem is, lack of love, lack of spirituality, lack of humanity, massive diseases of the heart.

From inside the world's largest Cult, China, whose Cult Leaders', Communist Party members' lives, families' lives are valued most highly to where their so called masses of 1 billion valued at a very low level, no higher than animals.

How do we know that 7 billion is the highest number of human beings that have ever lived on this planet at one time??? We do not.

Are we certain that highly nutritious food can not be produced to feed 7 billion humans or more??? We are not!

Are we certain that viable employment can not be obtained for all those able to work on a planet where the most successful economic system, free enterprise at it's best, is not allowed in Cult nations in the world, at least a third of the population??? We are not.

Freedom for all without Cultic tampering will bring employment, food, housing, opportunity and prosperity for all.

How do we know that the levels of pollution are the greatest concentration now since the planet's beginnings??? We do not.

The beginnings of the industrial age in 19th century western civilization, was a grimy, dirty place to be, where every home, every factory, was burning coal for heat and power. The cities' sky was literally black from the soot of coal from Europe to North America. Are we sure that we have more man made pollution today than then???

If we do it is mainly from Communist, dictatorial rogue states who have a low value of human life anyway. These evil, self serving, regimes of greed refuse to participate in any talks of reducing their pollutant emissions. Leftist media sources ignore that fact.

??? So occidental, freely elected governments are compelled to place oppressive standards on their nations' manufacturing facilities, forcing those companies to outsource labor to rogue, pollutant states who do not value the health, much less life of their unfortunate inhabitants ??? Yes they are.

Environmental regulations we need, but within reason. If the end result is that jobs leave America, for instance, to third world nations who have no environmental regulations then that is a ludicrous tragedy.

There is much Leftist propaganda to debunk when it comes to the issue of the sanctity of life. At the leadership level on down, all Cults are communistic. Don't believe me? Think about it. List the freedoms of those who live in Cults. Freedom of Religion? Hah! That a ruse for Cult subjugation.

Any Cult leader, from the current murderous scumbag Cult leader of China, to the smallest Cult of one form or another out there has a very low value on the sanctity of life.

What about the Mormons? What about them? Women have a very low value in the Cult of Mormonism. Having large families, marriage of child brides, exiling young men from their polygamous communes, even in L.D.S. the only reason for having many children is to feed the megalomania of future Gods the Mormon men believe they will be with their own planet to populate.

Racist Cults are in favor of population control when it comes to the other races, ethnic groups, not theirs. Hitler gave the examples of racist genocide there.

I suspect some Atheists place more value on the life of a dolphin or a whale than they do a human life.

The world's problems are caused by Cults and the low value of human worth they place on us.

One of the two most murderous Cult leaders in the world (other: Mao ZeDong, both Atheists) Joseph Stalin said: "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

That speaks volumes about the fallen state of every Cult out there, including the despicable abortionists mentioned in the article above.

Before the Cult Defenders automatically spin that I am for murdering abortionists... stop right there. No I am not! Am I for outlawing all abortions? No I am not. So no Cult Defender spin possible there.

But If YOU do not place the same value on all human life, no matter whose, no matter where, then you have been duped by Cult propaganda and are part of the problem. Your life is just as worthy as all others, but you need a big curative dose of love and spirituality my sisters and brothers!

If you do, stop looking down your nose at other human beings. They are no worse or better than you. All are equal in the eyes of God and so should be in our eyes as well.

To me ALL life is precious from within the mother's womb to the last breath taken by the dying after all medical assistance has been availed.

I was saddened by the sight of a dead squirrel in the middle of the road as I drove to work this morning.

So I love you all wherever and whoever you are!

Defeating Cults is the solution, not Cult induced genocide through wars, oppression, starvation or abortions.

Birth control has never been the real solution. The solution is to end all forms of Cultic control in our lives so that new born lives can all live in freedom!

I celebrate the birth of the 7 billionth child of God. Wish them God's blessings.

Tens of millions of abortions have been performed in the last several decades. Most legal systems today allow for abortion on demand, especially since 98%-99% of known cases are claimed to be for the 'mental health' of the mother, and the preborn infant is claimed to be inhuman, without any legal rights whatsoever.

Is a preborn baby fully human?

The baby can feel pain and terror just as much as any of us, and with a completely unique genetic code and blood type is genetically and medically a completely separate human being. At six weeks after conception (by the time most women know they are pregnant), the baby's nervous system is fully developed, all systems are fully in place by week eight, and by week nine the baby is very lively, sucks its thumb, grasps objects, responds to touch, and can even do somersaults. The baby is fully formed and operational, and the remainder of pregnancy time mostly results in increased size and strength.

How abortions are typically performed

Over half of abortions occur in weeks 9-11 of pregnancy, when the baby is fully formed, and over 90% are performed by suction curettage. Suction curettage uses a suction tube with a sharp loop-shaped knife top, sometimes stabbing and ripping the baby's body parts apart to suck them out, but the baby may also emerge whole. If the suction does not show parts, the doctor goes in with forceps to pull the baby apart and out piece by piece. What kills the child is sucking or tearing apart its body parts, along with complete separation of the fetus and placental tissue from the maternal uterine surface, totally disrupting the vascular connection and resulting in death. The baby can still be alive and heart beating for up to a minute after emerging from the mother.

Other methods such as saline injection are even more torturous, forcing the baby to swallow concentrated salt, which causes it to go into convulsions, burning it alive inside and out and causing internal organs to hemorrhage for up to 2 hours until death finally occurs and the torture stops.

What is the root problem?

Abortion is a failed attempt at solving a symptom, not the problem. The root problem is that preborn infants are not recognized as fully human, coupled with immoral and irresponsible sexual intercourse by people who don't want children. Ignoring their God-given consciences, people are willing to have unwanted children silently and conveniently tortured to death rather than take responsibility for their actions.

What is the real solution?

The core problem needs to be addressed by educating people that unborn children are people, not worthless objects to be disposed of when unwanted, and to avoid irresponsible intercourse if children are not wanted. Most people today assume sexual ‘freedom’ is their absolute right, even though God strongly commands against intercourse outside of marriage, seemingly to protect the family unit and children as a priority. Sexual licentiousness or perversion was punishable by death in the Mosaic Law because God knew it caused death just as much as direct murder, and that’s what occurs today.

When unwanted children are conceived, however, offering them for adoption is a *much* better way to address this symptom of irresponsible and typically sinful behavior. If we only address symptoms and not the root cause, then the underlying problem will continue, and likely the mass torture and slaughter of innocents along with it.

Our modern ‘civilized’ society

We like to imagine we're civilized today, but tens of millions of the innocent unborn have been tortured and killed by being sliced apart or chemically burned/poisoned in their mother’s womb with no escape, justified by the evolutionary, godless lie that they are not human until they physically emerge from the mother. From God’s perspective, all nations are guilty, drowning under this raging torrent of innocent blood. Even though it is medically and genetically indefensible, the world increasingly practices mass murder today. We should all be deeply ashamed and repent now before God of this unspeakable horror that has tortured and murdered countless millions of innocent children.

Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide

by Jonathan Sarfati

8 March 2012

‘Ethicists’ say that this baby may be killed.

We have often provided evidence for the full humanity of the unborn child right from conception (i.e. fertilization of egg by sperm). And while still in the womb, children develop the ability to feel pain and even to plan their future, and are considered to be patients. Individual life is a continuum from conception to natural death. Birth changes nothing intrinsically about the nature of that life, just location and mode of respiration (from placenta to lungs).

This is one vital matter on which to decide the abortion issue, because murder applies only to human victims, not to the removal of a tumor or wart. The evidence for the humanity of the unborn has thus convinced many that abortion is wrong, since they disapprove of murder.1 For the same reason, most pro-abortion politicians don’t even dare to admit that the baby is human; they lie about it being a ‘blob of cells’, or obfuscate about it with feigned ignorance about the nature of the unborn, and quips that the question of where life begins is ‘above my pay grade.’ Never mind that the onus of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show that it’s not human life. If we didn’t know whether a body was live or dead, we would never bury it—we would give the benefit of the doubt to life.

But the reason many people still oppose murder is ultimately due to God’s command, “Do not murder.” Even many people who disbelieve in God have still been influenced by the Judeo-Christian world view of the culture they were raised in, and oppose murder. That is, while their atheistic world view can’t provide a basis for ethics, they hijack what is to them a foreign world view.

Baby Steps video from American Life League: Using 4D ultrasounds, the film shows the baby in the womb from 8 weeks through to birth.

Consistent atheists and pagans

However, an increasing number of atheists are becoming more consistent. That is, they share with pro-lifers the correct belief that there is no real difference between born and unborn children. But their consistency moves in the opposite direction. Their callousness towards unborn life is extended to children already born. This should not be surprising for those who have abandoned the Judeo-Christian view of sanctity of innocent2 human life, and replaced it with an evolutionary ‘ethic’, if such a term is even meaningful.

Their advocacy of infanticide is hardly anything new. We have already written about the atheistic evolutionary philosopher Peter Singer. He is explicit:

On abortion, suicide, and voluntary euthanasia … we may think as we do because we have grown up in a society that was, for two thousand years, dominated by the Christian religion.3

On abortion, suicide, and voluntary euthanasia … we may think as we do because we have grown up in a society that was, for two thousand years, dominated by the Christian religion.—Peter Singer

We have also pointed out that the Nazi regime shared this evolution-inspired disregard for human life, and went horribly down the same slippery slope. Dr Leo Alexander (1905–1985) was a chief medical adviser at some of the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis. Alexander pointed out that the eugenics and euthanasia policies had “small beginnings … the acceptance of the attitude … that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.” But after the camel had managed to get its nose into the tent, it wasn’t long before its whole body was in, and the human displaced. Alexander continued:

Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick.4

Nazism was not just evolutionism, but also had a strong element of Teutonic paganism, although there were certainly plenty of overt atheists in the high echelons of the party (e.g. Martin Bormann, Baldur von Schirach, Alfred Rosenberg). Dr. A.J. Pennings wrote that Nazism grew out of “a deeply held mystical paganism … strengthened by the teachings of Darwinism and the pseudo-science of eugenics.”5 And one disturbing feature of their love for infanticide, as the late D. James Kennedy points out, was that:

“It was a dangerous thing for a baby to be conceived in classical Rome or Greece, just as it is becoming dangerous once more under the influence of the modern pagan. In those days abortion was rampant. Abandonment was commonplace: it was common for infirm babies or unwanted little ones to be taken out into the forest or the mountainside, to be consumed by wild animals or to starve or to be picked up by rather strange people who crept around at night, and then would use them for whatever perverted purposes they had in mind. Parents abandoned virtually all deformed babies. Many parents abandoned babies if they were poor. They often abandoned female babies because women were considered inferior.

Christianity expressly forbade infanticide, and prohibited Christian husbands from forcing their wives to kill their babies either by abortion or infanticide.

“To make matters worse, those children who outlived infancy—approximately two-thirds of those born—were the property of their father: he could kill them at his whim. Only about half of the children born lived beyond the age of eight, in part because of widespread infanticide, with famine and illness also being factors. Infanticide was not only legal: it was applauded.”6,7

The Spartans and Romans were notorious for infanticide. The Romans also had the practice of paterfamilias, where fathers had the power of life and death over their children. Christianity expressly forbade infanticide, and prohibited Christian husbands from forcing their wives to kill their babies either by abortion or infanticide.

Only the Judeo-Christian sanctity of life ethic overcame all such abominations, which these latter-day pagans seem to want to revive.

More infanticide

Recently, we saw two more soi-disant ethicists argue for infanticide, again venturing on the same slippery slope as Singer, Obama, and the Nazis. Alberto Giubilini of Monash University (Melbourne, Australia) and Francesca Minerva of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics (UK),8 published a paper entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” And it was in the (grossly misnamed?) Journal of Medical Ethics. The abstract reads:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.9

One must wonder what passes for ‘ethics’ these days. In one of my favorite TV series NCIS, the character Dr Donald ‘Ducky’ Mallard (played by David McCallum) is asked to give, “In your own words, the difference between ethics and morals.” Ducky answers, “Well the ethical man knows he shouldn’t cheat on his wife, whereas the moral man actually wouldn’t.”10 But he evidently hadn’t met these ‘ethicists’, who, if they were consistent with their evolutionary world view, would not even have any basis for thinking they shouldn’t.

Similarly, moral and legal likewise don’t mean the same thing. Abortion is legal in most Western countries; killing the chronically disabled was legal in Nazi Germany (to say nothing of the state-sanctioned genocide of the Jews), but neither are moral. In the antebellum USA, the notorious US Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) upheld slavery and white supremacy as legal, justifying it by declaring that black people:

Vocal atheist and prominent evolutionist, P.Z. Myers.

had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.11

Critique

Let’s take each of their three reasons in turn.

1. The ‘personhood’ argument. I’ve noted before in an article critiquing legalized cloning that pro-abortionists are usually the ones who avoid the science, preferring instead vague quasi-religious comments about when, for example, a ‘person’ begins. Yet of course they “blast opposition to abortion as ‘religious’ (although it is in the sense that science can’t tell us it’s wrong to murder) when they are the ones appealing to religious concepts, while the pro-lifers point out scientific facts.”

Similarly, these ‘ethicists’ have decreed that somehow newborns are less than persons. So has the vocal atheopathic12 evolutionist P.Z. Myers, whom we have refuted before, saying:

Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human. I’ve had a few. They weren’t.— P.Z. Myers, prominent evolutionist.

“Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human. I’ve had a few. They weren’t.13”

Once again, he is being a consistent atheist, and also yearning for pagan times that regarded babies as disposable.

“The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence. Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible.”

Once again, slippery slope. Many of Nazi Germany’s arguments for euthanasia are very similar, as I’ve pointed out before:

Both Hitler and these ‘ethicists’ exhibit the same disregard for human life, because both accept the premise that there is such a thing as human ‘life not worthy of life’, which was the root of the Holocaust.

One book written four years before Mein Kampf (1924) and very much part of the German cultural milieu was Allowing the Annihilation of Life Unworthy of Life (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens) 1920 by two evolutionists, lawyer Karl Binding (1841–1920) and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche (1865–1943). So it’s not surprising that Hitler’s tome said about such annihilation of unworthy life:

It will spare millions of unfortunates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to a rising improvement of health as a whole.

There must be no half-measures. It is a half-measure to let incurably sick people steadily contaminate the remaining healthy ones. This is in keeping with the humanitarianism which, to avoid hurting one individual, lets a hundred others perish.

This is far from a “reductio ad Hitlerum” fallacy, although the infanticide defenders hate to see the comparison exposed. Rather, both Hitler and these ‘ethicists’ exhibit the same disregard for human life, because both accept the premise that there is such a thing as human ‘life not worthy of life’, which as Dr Leo Alexander said (see above) was the root of the Holocaust. Their only difference is which humans fall into this category.

2. Irrelevance of personhood: The ‘ethicists’ explain further:

Rebecca Kiessling: conceived by a brutal rape, and grateful that she was not executed for her father’s crime while in her mother’s womb; see her website.

“Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”

Of course, pro-lifers have long reversed this argument using the same premises, as explained above. Because we don’t allow the execution of innocent life after birth, and there is nothing that intrinsically changes at birth, we should not allow it before birth. The same argument can be applied to opposing use of embryonic stem cells, but not ‘adult’ or somatic stem cells, which both avoid destroying tiny humans and actually produce cures.14 These ‘ethicists’ are going down the same slippery slope as the Nazis: because we allow some killing of human beings, we should allow more of the same.

Now with capital punishment, pro-lifers often receive comments like, “You are so hypocritical: you believe in sanctity of life before birth, but not after birth, because you don’t oppose war or capital punishment.” Actually, some pro-lifers do oppose these. But the main point is that the argument can be turned around on them: ‘You’re so hypocritical: you oppose the death penalty for the foulest mass murderers and killing to defend one’s life and country during war, but you support the death penalty for being ‘unwanted’ in your declared war on the unborn.’ Or as Rebecca Kiessling, conceived by a violent rape, asks, “Did I deserve the death penalty?” (for the crime of her father, who is even not subject to the death penalty in any state of the USA).

3. “Adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people”. Well, it’s certainly better for the baby than being torn apart in the mother’s womb or scalded with concentrated salt solution, or butchered after birth. There is also a good chance that the baby will be loved by two married parents and raised to be a productive member of society.

But these ‘ethicists’ don’t care about that. What they mean is that adoption is not necessarily the best option for the birth-mother, so it is sometimes preferable to kill the child. But this is actually a glaring contradiction of what has long been regarded as the epitome of wisdom, illustrating the great wisdom God had granted King Solomon at his selfless request (1 Kings 3:8–15).

The historical account continues (1 Kings 3:16–28) by explaining how two prostitutes came before the young king. They roomed together, and both gave birth to a son a few days apart. Unfortunately, one of them had accidentally laid on her baby and smothered him. The woman who discovered the dead child then claimed that it wasn’t hers, and must have been switched with her living child when she was asleep. All Solomon could see is two women fighting over one child.

His shocking solution was to order a sword, and say, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” The response:

“Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, ‘Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means put him to death.’ But the other said, ‘He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him.’ Then the king answered and said, ‘Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.’ And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice.”

Julian Savulescu

Solomon knew that any decent mother would rather give up her child for a sort of adoption than see him killed. But these latter-day philosophers, ostensibly ‘lovers of wisdom’15, have basically said that Solomon, and all his admirers throughout the ages, was wrong here: a mother would rather see her child killed than given up for adoption, the very characteristic of the false mother in the account. If the word hadn’t already been taken, I would have renamed ‘philosophers’ to ‘sophomores’, for the original meaning ‘wise fool’.16

Infanticidal intolerance

Unable to quit while they’re behind, the infanticide-lovers have now been defended by their editor Julian Savulescu. He accused opponents of being “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”, a threat to “academic discussion and freedom”, and practising “hate speech” and having “hostile, abusive, threatening responses”.17

He argues that more evidence for the consciousness of patients in a “persistent vegetative state” means less reason to keep them alive.19

Consider how he advocates dealing with the very mentally disturbed patients suffering from the condition apotemnophilia, a desire to amputate perfectly healthy limbs. Instead of treating this hopefully temporary condition, he argues that amputation “might be desirable”, although permanently disabling.20

Savulescu has basically abandoned his utilitarian ethics to make a moral argument for the right to defend baby-butchery, and against criticism. And of course, the critics were exercising their free speech rights, which he doesn’t like.

Savulescu justifies his latest tirade against dissenters by saying that the pro-infanticide ideas “are not largely new” (as shown, this is not news to us either), and that “infanticide is practised in the Netherlands” (as it was in Sparta and Canaan—but that is not a reflection of how wonderful infanticide is, but how debased these nations are/were in this regard).

The irony apparently escapes him. He has basically abandoned his utilitarian ethics to make a moral argument for the right to defend baby-butchery, and against criticism. And of course, the critics were exercising their free speech rights, which Savulescu doesn’t like. It’s not the first time that those of his ilk really believe in ‘free speech for me but not for thee’—see The hypocrisy of intolerant tolerance.

Conclusion

This recent promotion of infanticide is just a logical outcome of an evolutionary world view. Far from being a progressive step forward, it’s really a regression to the world view of the Nazis and of the most debased pagans of antiquity—debasements cured by the Gospel. And such twisted ‘ethicists’ even lack the ability to think straight: they attack opponents as ‘threats to free speech’ when in reality they are merely exercising this right!